Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

This is a discussion on Head of Household MUST own a gun!!! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; A thread was started about the possibility of this becoming law.... Well, last night about midnight the law passed.
Here's an article about it.
That's ...

Head of Household MUST own a gun!!!

A thread was started about the possibility of this becoming law.... Well, last night about midnight the law passed.

Here's an article about it.

That's a step in the right direction. I grew up in Kennesaw,GA where a similar law has been in place for years and the town has a really low crime rate. Now if we could just get NY, Chicago, CA etc. to follow suit I'm sure we would see a turn around in those places.

Regards,
Jim NRA Life MemberCharter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society - "Get Heeled! No, really!"He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

While I'm obviously pro 2A
I'm anti "you must" laws from the government regarding what I must purchase.
Like Obamacare.
Shall not be infringed should not mean do it or else.
Even though I'm sure there is no enforcement.

IMHO, it's just another piece of legislation that addresses an absence of common sense. You can't legislate the obvious any more than you can legislate morality. Helmet laws are a fine example. Why should we be mandated to do something when the only victim is the law-breaker? Yet isn't it interesting that the higher the ethical, moral and/or religious standards which the members of a society individually hold themselves, the fewer laws...they need? More laws aren't EVER the answer. All they serves to accomplish is to confuse matters of law with the clear direction of an internal moral compass. For example, I don't cheat on my taxes. But the ever-growing volumes of tax code legislation makes it increasingly difficult (and expensive) to assure I'm following the rules. And enforcement can only mean registration, how else are they gonna' know?

Unenforceable law,you can't force anybody to own a firearm.IMHO I am more for local LEO's Sheriffs that are advising their Citizens to get a firearm and the training to use it because they know that it's the best defense

The local government can tell you must have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. Depending on the type/size of your building, they can tell you you must install a sprinkler system for fire prevention. They will make you buy and install water meters. They will require your house to be structurally stable. They will tell you what you can or cannot own on your property based on its zoning. If it is commercial, you probably can't have a pig farm. If it is residential, you probably can't build an assembly line factory. They have big checklists that you will be required to fulfill each and every requirement just to build something on your property. They will inspect it to make sure you are doing it properly, or you will be shut down. Not to mention you must apply for and purchase permits to do just about anything on your property.

...But you don't think they can tell you that you must have a firearm to be the head of a household in their municipality? I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying they are already requiring vast amounts of things from you. To say they can't force commerce... you are wrong. They are very good at it, already.

Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Personally, I think we should reinstate this act and update the equipment requirements.

IMHO, it's just another piece of legislation that addresses an absence of common sense. You can't legislate the obvious any more than you can legislate morality. Helmet laws are a fine example. Why should we be mandated to do something when the only victim is the law-breaker? Yet isn't it interesting that the higher the ethical, moral and/or religious standards which the members of a society individually hold themselves, the fewer laws...they need? More laws aren't EVER the answer. All they serves to accomplish is to confuse matters of law with the clear direction of an internal moral compass. For example, I don't cheat on my taxes. But the ever-growing volumes of tax code legislation makes it increasingly difficult (and expensive) to assure I'm following the rules. And enforcement can only mean registration, how else are they gonna' know?

Iowa is one of few states that does not require adult bike (motorcycle) drivers to wear helmets. However, The cost for surviving TBI is steep... and many who ride bikes cannot pay those costs... and then, the rest of us pay for their recovery.... Because hospitals are required to give a modicum of care, even if you ain't got jack. That's one of the "reasons" behind helmet laws...

We talk alla time about entitlements... now, that's an entitlement.... play stupid games, get hurt, somebody else pays.

Originally Posted by CJ_mp40c

Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.

Building codes in private residences protect others from dangerous situations? How? You wanna visit my house, my homeowner's insurance will pay if you get injured... if my home is a shack... and looks dangerous to go into, you have a choice... If you don't wanna come in, fine.

Originally Posted by NH_Esau

Old news. From the Militia Act of 1792:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Personally, I think we should reinstate this act and update the equipment requirements.

I haven't been enrolled and notified, doesn't apply to me.
I'm a conscientious objector, does not apply to me.
I'm a woman, doesn't apply to me.
I am free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness; does not apply to me.
I am a paraplegic, does not apply to me.
I am black, doesn't apply to me.

And, if you got Congress to reinstate the act, they would not UPDATE the requirements, and we would be considered "covered" under the 2nd Amendment. "There, boys, go have your little "revolution against tyranny, now!" I'll take a pass, thanks.

Those are all things (building codes) that protect others from dangerous situations. Making someone own a gun is completely different. They can't make people read books so we all are smarter, that is a personal choice too.

I'll continue to play devils advocate.
...You don't think that that is the very purpose of this law? For the head of a household to protect it from dangerous situations? Could it not be argued that this town is simply "regulating militia"? Ensuring that it has adequate protection in a time of crisis?